THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.767 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 11.03.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.119 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Medak, Sangareddy (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of one Komreddy Chenna Reddy, husband of claimant No. 1, son of claimant Nos. 2 & 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.12.2013. According to the claimants, on the fateful day, while the deceased was proceeding on his Bajaj Discover motor cycle bearing No. AP 23 AF 1654 from Jogipet 2 MGP, J Macma_767_2017 to Ramsanpally and at about 10:00 p.m., when he reached in the limits of Annasagar, one lorry bearing No. MH 26 H 7002, owned by respondent No. 1, insured with respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver, came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased received grievous injuries and died on the spot. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 26 years and earning Rs.9,000/- per month as tractor driver. Therefore, the claimants, being wife and parents of deceased, filed the claim petition against the respondent Nos.1 & 2 claiming compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs towards compensation under different heads.
4. Before the Tribunal, while the respondent No. 1 remained ex parte, the respondent No. 2 filed counter denying the petition averments and also denied the age, income, avocation and manner of the accident. He further contended the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excess and exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition. 3
MGP, J Macma_767_2017
5. Considering the claim, counter filed by respondent No. 2 and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the O.P., awarding a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be deposited by the respondent Nos.1 & 2, jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the claimants have filed this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2. Perused the material available on record.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that although the Tribunal came to conclusion that the claimants are entitled to get total compensation of Rs.6,27,000/-, but erroneously restricted the compensation amount to Rs.5,00,000/- only. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have noted that there is no restriction in awarding compensation as just compensation, if in case, the amount arrived by the Tribunal is exceeding the claimed amount. 4
MGP, J Macma_767_2017
8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2 herein has contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
9. As regards the manner of accident, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW.2, eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary evidence available on record i.e., Exs.A.1, FIR & A.2, Charge sheet, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. MH 26 H 7002. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which are based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective. Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
10. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the claimants, the deceased was aged 26 years and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month as a tractor driver. But no evidence is adduced to prove the income or avocation 5 MGP, J Macma_767_2017 of the deceased. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-per month, which is very less. Hence, considering the avocation of the deceased, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-. Since, the deceased was aged 26 years, 40% was added towards future prospects as per the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, which works out to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500 + Rs.1,800). As there are three dependents, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and living expenses, the net monthly income of the deceased works out to Rs.4,200/- (Rs.6,300 - Rs.2,100). Since the age of the deceased was 26 years, as held by the Tribunal, the appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. Adopting multiplier '18', the total loss of dependency comes to Rs.9,07,200/- (Rs.4,200 x 12 x 18). 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 6 MGP, J Macma_767_2017 That apart, the claimants are entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.9,84,200/-.
11. At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimants claimed only a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made, which is impermissible under law.
12. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another3, the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh4 held as under:
"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason 3 (2011) 10 SCC 756 4 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 7 MGP, J Macma_767_2017 any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."
13. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above, the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration, the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.
14. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.9,84,200/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share of compensation without furnishing any security. However, the claimants are directed to pay Deficit 8 MGP, J Macma_767_2017 Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 21.04.2023 gms 9 MGP, J Macma_767_2017 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.767 of 2017 DATE: 21.04.2023 gms